2. The documentary is about corporate fishing and the widespread overfishing of the world’s oceans. The film draws special attention to corporate methods of fishing and the unsustainability of these methods.
3. The film follows the journey of Charles Clover to figure out where his fish comes and corporate methods of fishing. The documentary provides and adequate amount of science for the claims it makes. At no point during the film did I think that the film was exaggerating or overstating their case. What I found specifically helpful and interesting were all the charts of annual catch of the different fish species. The trend across all those graphs was unmistakable. The film definitely has emotional appeal, like any good documentary. The music certainly had emotional overtones. Everyone sees the ocean as vast and plentiful but the film argues that is not the case and the future of the ocean looks very grim indeed. The fact that humanity’s ways can destroy something as large as the ocean, appeals to any person. There is also emotional appeal to the fact some communities absolutely depend on this increasingly dwindling resource.
4. This film draws out several sustainability problems: food politics, corporate responsibility, pollution, educational and environmental.
5. What I found most compelling was Mitsubishi’s methods on fishing the Blue Fin Tuna. They knowingly caught large amounts of Blue Fin tuna even though the species is endangered and nearing collapse. They did this for two reasons. One, blue Fin Tuna is highly sought after and thus a relatively expensive food. So they are just filling demand for a pricey food. Yet, Mitsubishi wasn’t selling the entire blue fin they caught; they were also storing a large amount in freezers. The second reason is they know they’re fishing the species to death; in fact that’s what they expect. They’re storing the blue fin tuna in preparation for a future with no blue fin tuna left. By having the last of an extinct species would allow them to make a large amount of money off of the species. This entire translation of a species into money is what I find compelling. Many think that if companies knew their practices truly weren’t sustainable they would change so they could survive in the long run. Mitsubishi proves that this isn’t always the case. They would destroy part of their business if they could make enough money off of it.
6. There really anything in the film that wasn’t convincing. Well maybe that guy who said all the charts showing the species decline were false. His basic assertion of “they’re wrong” was rather unconvincing.
7. The audience best addresses people fishing communities, fishermen, ocean communities, island communities and eaters of seafood. Obviously declining fish populations would have a direct negative effect on the oceans ecosystem. This would then directly affect people’s livelihood that depends directly on the ocean ecosystem. Without a vibrant, healthy ocean to live off of, most coastal communities would decline. This is especially troublesome for island communities due to them being surrounded by the ocean. Lastly seafood lovers would be affected because there would be no seafood for them to eat.
8. The film could have focused a bit more on how pollution is affecting ocean life. There were one or two mentions of pollution problem but most of the film focused on overfishing. There was no mention of chemical runoff, sewage waste, rising water temperatures or acidification. Mentioning these issues would have increased the environmental education of the film.
9. One action recommended by the film was to know where your fish comes from. There is fish out there that is caught sustainably. Also figuring out where your fish comes from will allow you to find out if your fish was caught legally or not. This will help punish companies that fish illegally. They also recommend not eating blue fin tuna, since it is an endangered species. Beyond exercising your purchasing power, the film does not really suggest anything else. Additional measures I would recommend would be helping to educate more people about the overfishing crisis. Protest of negligent companies would be helpfully yet that isn’t going to happen without first educating the public why they should be protesting.
10. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/subsidies/
This website had a lot of interesting facts, such as how subsidiaries are helping support an already oversized fishing fleet. And it also gives more information about bycatch which is animals caught which aren’t the target species. Many times these animals are dumped right overboard, dead. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-16-02.html
Apparently the US and China are trying to work together to ban IUU (illegal, unregulated and unreported) fishing. I don’t know how affective the joint venture will be but at the very least something is in place by the government to address the issue.
End of the Line
1. End of the Line, Rupert Murray, 2009
2. The documentary is about corporate fishing and the widespread overfishing of the world’s oceans. The film draws special attention to corporate methods of fishing and the unsustainability of these methods.
3. The film follows the journey of Charles Clover to figure out where his fish comes and corporate methods of fishing. The documentary provides and adequate amount of science for the claims it makes. At no point during the film did I think that the film was exaggerating or overstating their case. What I found specifically helpful and interesting were all the charts of annual catch of the different fish species. The trend across all those graphs was unmistakable. The film definitely has emotional appeal, like any good documentary. The music certainly had emotional overtones. Everyone sees the ocean as vast and plentiful but the film argues that is not the case and the future of the ocean looks very grim indeed. The fact that humanity’s ways can destroy something as large as the ocean, appeals to any person. There is also emotional appeal to the fact some communities absolutely depend on this increasingly dwindling resource.
4. This film draws out several sustainability problems: food politics, corporate responsibility, pollution, educational and environmental.
5. What I found most compelling was Mitsubishi’s methods on fishing the Blue Fin Tuna. They knowingly caught large amounts of Blue Fin tuna even though the species is endangered and nearing collapse. They did this for two reasons. One, blue Fin Tuna is highly sought after and thus a relatively expensive food. So they are just filling demand for a pricey food. Yet, Mitsubishi wasn’t selling the entire blue fin they caught; they were also storing a large amount in freezers. The second reason is they know they’re fishing the species to death; in fact that’s what they expect. They’re storing the blue fin tuna in preparation for a future with no blue fin tuna left. By having the last of an extinct species would allow them to make a large amount of money off of the species. This entire translation of a species into money is what I find compelling. Many think that if companies knew their practices truly weren’t sustainable they would change so they could survive in the long run. Mitsubishi proves that this isn’t always the case. They would destroy part of their business if they could make enough money off of it.
6. There really anything in the film that wasn’t convincing. Well maybe that guy who said all the charts showing the species decline were false. His basic assertion of “they’re wrong” was rather unconvincing.
7. The audience best addresses people fishing communities, fishermen, ocean communities, island communities and eaters of seafood. Obviously declining fish populations would have a direct negative effect on the oceans ecosystem. This would then directly affect people’s livelihood that depends directly on the ocean ecosystem. Without a vibrant, healthy ocean to live off of, most coastal communities would decline. This is especially troublesome for island communities due to them being surrounded by the ocean. Lastly seafood lovers would be affected because there would be no seafood for them to eat.
8. The film could have focused a bit more on how pollution is affecting ocean life. There were one or two mentions of pollution problem but most of the film focused on overfishing. There was no mention of chemical runoff, sewage waste, rising water temperatures or acidification. Mentioning these issues would have increased the environmental education of the film.
9. One action recommended by the film was to know where your fish comes from. There is fish out there that is caught sustainably. Also figuring out where your fish comes from will allow you to find out if your fish was caught legally or not. This will help punish companies that fish illegally. They also recommend not eating blue fin tuna, since it is an endangered species. Beyond exercising your purchasing power, the film does not really suggest anything else. Additional measures I would recommend would be helping to educate more people about the overfishing crisis. Protest of negligent companies would be helpfully yet that isn’t going to happen without first educating the public why they should be protesting.
10. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/subsidies/
This website had a lot of interesting facts, such as how subsidiaries are helping support an already oversized fishing fleet. And it also gives more information about bycatch which is animals caught which aren’t the target species. Many times these animals are dumped right overboard, dead.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-16-02.html
Apparently the US and China are trying to work together to ban IUU (illegal, unregulated and unreported) fishing. I don’t know how affective the joint venture will be but at the very least something is in place by the government to address the issue.